Dozens of developed and developing countries, representing half of the world’s population, are set to hold or have already held elections this year. While the outcome of some races might seem predetermined, the upcoming elections in the US and India, as well as Taiwan’s presidential election in January, would have far-reaching global implications, regardless of who wins.
For the world’s liberal democracies, the most consequential of these races is undoubtedly November’s US presidential election.
Regrettably, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that US voters would elect former US president Donald Trump. Given that Trump has shown no regard for the rule of law and prefers the company of autocratic leaders to that of democratically elected ones, free societies around the world would anxiously await the results. Many would be praying for US President Joe Biden to win.
Another critical election, at least for Europe, would be the UK’s upcoming general election, which is expected to take place sometime in the second half of the year.
With a 20 percent lead in the polls, the opposition Labour Party is the clear frontrunner. However, given the country’s political dysfunction, it remains to be seen whether Labour would be able to implement its economic policy agenda.
The British economy and political system have been upended over the past few years by the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine.
While the UK’s Conservative Party government maintains that it should not be blamed for global developments beyond its control, it should be held accountable for facilitating the UK’s disastrous exit from the EU.
Overall, British politicians are reluctant to talk about Brexit. This could be partly attributed to many voters’ unwillingness to broach the subject, especially those misled by the “Leave” campaign, and to the efforts of prominent Brexiteers to shut down debate. However, the UK’s current economic woes — falling exports, slowing growth, low productivity, high taxes and strained public finances — underscore the urgency of confronting Brexit’s catastrophic consequences.
FIXING BREXIT MISTAKES
To be sure, commanding and retaining majority support for some of the difficult decisions ahead would not be easy. It is astonishing that the decision to leave the EU — arguably the UK’s most consequential decision since the end of World War II — was made with little to no planning, based on lies, empty promises and misconceptions.
The country’s current predicament brings to mind the iconic final scene of the 1969 film The Italian Job, in which a group of robbers led by Michael Caine makes a getaway in a bus heavily loaded with stacks of gold bars. While speeding through a sharp mountainous curve, the coach ends up teetering on the edge of a cliff. The gold is positioned at one end of the bus, and the thieves are at the opposite end, with any sudden movement potentially sending the vehicle tumbling down.
Caine’s closing line could have served as a slogan for the “Leave” campaign: “Hang on a minute, lads, I’ve got a great idea.”
Brexiteers’ promises that leaving the EU would revitalize British sovereignty and usher in an era of economic prosperity were rooted in misguided optimism. Now, confronted with the painful consequences of its decision, the UK finds itself at a crossroads.
So, as Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin once asked: “What is to be done?”
First, British voters must ensure that their political leaders can no longer remain in denial about what happened.
Second, the UK must repair its relationship with the EU.
While some might hope that the UK would rejoin the EU, such an outcome is extremely unlikely without meaningful changes to the bloc’s structure. A scenario in which the UK adheres to most of the EU’s economic rules without playing a role in shaping them seems to be a nonstarter.
What British policymakers could do, albeit at the risk of raising the ire of Europhobes in British Parliament and the media, is to work more closely with their European counterparts to undo some of the damage caused by Brexit. Specifically, Britain should collaborate on defense, especially with France, to complement its NATO commitments.
Moreover, the UK could mitigate some of the disruption to trade with Europe and other countries by reconsidering its previous opposition to regulatory alignment.
Why, for example, should the UK’s rules on health and phytosanitary standards differ from those of the EU?
WORKING WITH THE EU
The two sides could collaborate on a range of issues, such as artificial intelligence, education, visas and professional licensing.
Given the ongoing migration crisis, British policymakers must also work closely with their European counterparts on how best to address the root causes of mass immigration from Africa and West Asia.
This could involve a combination of aid and security measures designed to encourage potential asylum seekers to stay in their home countries rather than risk the perilous journey to Europe.
These issues should be at the top of the next government’s agenda, whether it is led by Labour or the Conservative Party. Crucially, the UK must avoid the pitfalls of mindless right-wing populism, which fails to provide sustainable solutions and remains deeply unpopular.
Over the past few years, the UK has showcased its lack of intelligent and effective governance, leading the international community to approach its upcoming election with indifference. It is up to whoever wins to restore Britain’s global standing by putting it back on the path to economic prosperity, security and self-respect.
Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong and a former EU commissioner for external affairs, is chancellor of the University of Oxford and the author of The Hong Kong Diaries.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS